Asking Questions Protects Your Vote
Residents and Neighbors,
Election season in Upland is underway, and with it comes the usual flood of political mailers, social media posts, signs, accusations, and competing claims. Disagreement is part of the process, and residents should expect healthy debate over important issues. What concerns me is when disagreement turns into misinformation, half-truths, personal attacks, and statements that are repeated over and over without evidence.
That is especially true with Measure M. Residents are hearing a lot of claims, particularly on social media and from some of those opposing the measure. My request is simple: do not accept those claims at face value. Ask where the information came from. Ask for the numbers. Ask for the actual language in the measure. And when someone makes a specific claim, ask them to stay on that claim and explain exactly what they mean.
Too often, when a statement about Measure M is challenged, the discussion immediately shifts to accusations that the City Council is corrupt, that City Hall mismanages everything, or that the City cannot be trusted. Those are separate claims and they do not answer the original question. If someone says Measure M does something, they should be able to show where it says that. If someone alleges financial mismanagement, they should identify the expenditure, audit finding, report, or public record supporting that allegation. If someone alleges corruption, they should provide evidence. Changing the subject is not proof. Repeating an accusation is not proof. Putting a claim on Facebook, in a political mailer, or on the side of a rented truck does not make it true.
Residents should demand transparency from City Hall, but that standard should not stop at City Hall. City government is expected to produce budgets, staff reports, audits, financial statements, public records, and supporting documentation. If we expect government to show its work, then people making political claims should also be expected to explain where their information comes from.
Measure M provides a good example. One of the claims being repeated is that Measure M is a “new tax.” Yet Upland already has a business-license tax. Measure M addresses changes to that existing structure. So, if someone tells you that Measure M is simply a new tax, ask a basic question: if Upland already has a business-license tax, what exactly is new? Ask them to explain the current system, explain what Measure M changes, and show you the language that supports their claim.
Residents do not have to agree on whether the proposed changes are fair or appropriate. That is a legitimate policy debate. But that discussion should begin with an understanding of how the current system actually works and whether a 31-year-old structure still makes sense today.
A good example of the problem with Upland’s current business-license system is the difference between a small local business like Molly’s Souper and a large big-box retailer such as Target or Home Depot. Under the current system, once a business reaches the existing cap, both can pay the same maximum business-license tax of just $864 per year. That means a small locally owned restaurant can be paying the same business-license tax as a national retailer operating at a dramatically larger scale.
Yet these businesses do not place the same level of demand on City services and infrastructure. A small restaurant may have a relatively limited number of customers, employees, deliveries, and vehicle trips each day. A large big-box retailer can attract hundreds or thousands of customer trips, receive regular deliveries from large commercial trucks, generate substantially more traffic, and require a greater level of police response for theft, disturbances, traffic incidents, and other calls for service. That additional activity also contributes to greater use of City streets, intersections, traffic signals, and other public infrastructure.
Those services cost money. Police officers responding to calls, Public Works maintaining streets, traffic infrastructure handling additional vehicles, and other City services are all ultimately paid for through the City’s overall revenues.
That is why Measure M is proposing to update the 31-year-old structure. The current system effectively allows small businesses like Molly’s Souper to subsidize larger retailers such as Target and Home Depot. Molly’s can reach the same $864 business-license cap as a company operating on a vastly larger scale, even though that larger operation can create substantially more demand on the City’s infrastructure and services. Once the $864 cap is reached, the current business-license system simply stops recognizing that difference.
That is the fairness issue residents should consider. Why should a small locally owned restaurant potentially pay the same business-license tax as a multimillion-dollar national retailer? Why should the business operating on a smaller scale shoulder the same maximum license-tax obligation as a business potentially generating far greater traffic, deliveries, police calls, and infrastructure use?
Upland’s current business-license structure was created decades ago. The question is not whether big-box retailers are bad businesses; they are important parts of our local economy. The question is whether a 31-year-old tax structure that caps both the small business and the major national retailer at the same $864 amount still fairly reflects the very different scale at which those businesses operate and the demands they can place on City services.
If someone believes the current system should remain exactly as it is, that is a legitimate position. But then explain why. What is the alternative? How should the system be structured? What would be fairer? Those are reasonable policy questions deserving thoughtful answers, not one-line slogans or attempts to change the subject. Saying “City Hall is corrupt” or “the City wastes money” is not a substitute for answering them.
Social media makes this problem more difficult because misinformation often travels faster than facts. One person posts a claim, another person shares it, and before long repetition creates the appearance of truth. But repetition is not verification. Residents should also be cautious about claims that contain only part of the story while leaving out important context. Something does not have to be completely false to be misleading. Leaving out critical information can create an entirely different impression.
That is why I am asking residents to look beyond the headline, Facebook post, political mailer, or sign. Ask what might be missing. Ask where the numbers came from. Ask whether the person making the claim is presenting the complete picture.
The standard should be simple, and it should apply equally to everyone. If someone supports Measure M, ask for the facts. If someone opposes Measure M, ask for the facts. If a mailer arrives in your mailbox, check the claims. If something appears on social media, check the source. If someone makes a serious accusation, ask for evidence.
The City has published information regarding Measure M that residents can review for themselves. Read it. Question it. Compare it with what you are hearing online and receiving in your mailbox.
Residents can also attend the Quality of Life Community Outreach meetings on October 8 at Sierra Vista Elementary School and October 14 at Cabrillo Elementary School. Both meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. Attend. Ask questions. Ask for the numbers. Ask how the current system works and what the proposed changes would actually do. Then decide for yourself.
We do not all have to agree about Measure M. But we should be able to agree that facts matter, evidence matters, and serious claims should be supported by something more than repetition or political rhetoric.
Upland deserves better than a public debate driven by negativity, personal attacks, and misinformation. Small businesses deserve an honest discussion about whether the current system is fair. Residents deserve the complete picture.
Before repeating a claim, ask where it came from. Before believing an accusation, ask for proof. And before deciding what you think about Measure M, understand the existing system, understand the proposed changes, and make your decision based on the facts rather than the noise.
Respectfully,
James Breitling
City Councilmember, District 2
Disclaimer: The Upland Update is an independent community resource and is not affiliated with the City of Upland. This is my personal initiative to keep residents and businesses informed about key issues, city developments, and community events that impact our daily lives. My goal is to ensure you have clear, transparent, and timely information to stay engaged and involved in shaping Upland’s future.
James Breitling
(909) 342-2523
info@theuplandupdate.com
© 2025. All rights reserved.
